Saturday, October 19, 2013

Manish Tewari's strange advice: Part II

The Hindu reports:

"Dr. Singh was ‘satisfied’ that the final decision taken in this regard was ‘entirely appropriate’, and was based ‘on the merits of the case placed before him’. This is the first time Dr. Singh has clearly and unequivocally come out in support of the former coal secretary P.C Parakh, in the wake of the recent controversy where Mr. Parakh, along with Mr. Birla, has been named by the CBI in a fresh FIR."

It is unfortunate that the prime minister has ignored the noble advice of his cabinet colleague, Manish Tewari and gone public on a case which is 'subjudice'. There is one more interesting development. After the prime minister clarified that the final decision was entirely appropriate and was based on the merits of the case placed before him, Salman Khurshid and Manish Tewari have proffered the golden principle that bureaucrats and not the ministers are responsible for the decisions taken. A new kind of democracy on the anvil?

If ministers are not accountable for decisions, what are they accountable for? The twin ministerial luminaries have also clarified as P.Chidambaram had earlier explained in another context that ministers cannot be expected to read the notes which are approved by them. What an exemplary view!

On what authority does Manmohan Singh now claim that the decision was taken based on the merits of the case placed before him? Had he committed the unpardonable sin of reading the note placed to him?
Why should the ministers say that the prime minister cannot be expected to read the note after the latter 'admitted' to and pleaded guilty of reading the file?

In the FIR filed against Parakh and K M Birla, Singh should also have been named. Can the CBI now think of dropping the FIR on the basis of a rare assertion of the "should have been named" Singh?

Murphy's Law states "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong". GOI's Law says,"Anything that cannot go wrong, will also go wrong". Great going!

No comments: